TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1944'). By the order aforesaid the revisional authority affirmed the order dated 1.4.2010, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-II with respect to order in original passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Chittorgarh. In brief, facts of the case are that an application to have rebate as per Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2002'), preferred by the petitioner on 17.3.2008 in respect of export of goods on payment of duty through merchant exporter, came to be rejected being barred by limitation as per Section 11-B of the Act of 1944. Being aggrieved by rejection of claim, an appeal was filed before the Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been awarded by the respondents. The submission advanced is substantiated by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gravita India Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2016 (334) E.L.T. 321 (Raj.). In the case aforesaid a Division Bench of this Court, while examining the same issue, held as under:- "17. There is no quarrel with proposition that if Statute provided for limitation, it has to be adhered to. What however is being claimed by the petitioner is different. The question which arises in the present case is as to what should be the starting point for computation of this period of one year. We are persuaded to follow the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Cosmonaut Chemicals, supra, that any procedure prescribed by a subsidiar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1944 refund of any duty of excise could have been claimed by making application to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise before expiry of one year from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application should have been accompanied by such documentary or other evidence including the documents referred to in Section 12-A to establish that the amount of duty of excise on such duty was collected or paid by the claimant. The petitioner in the instant matter failed to furnish the application to claim the rebate within a period of one year from the date of shipment i.e. 4.1.2007, hence, the rebate was rightly denied. Learned counsel, while relying upon a judgment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was delivered to the petitioner after a lapse of one year and the petitioner after having the same filed the application to have rebate at earliest. Even as per Section 11-B of the Act of 1944, refund of any duty of excise could have been claimed by making an application accompanied by such documents or evidence including the documents referred in Section 12-A to establish that the amount of duty of excise was collected or paid by the claimant. In absence of shipping bill it would have not been possible for the claimant to make an application in accordance with law to claim the rebate as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002. In view of it, we are of considered opinion that no justification was available with the respondents to reject the claim....